Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

[Giraffe Stapler]

During the current Trump court case, a man named Maxwell Azzarello lit himself on fire in a park near the court. Wikipedia wasted little time in creating an article about the event: Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (T-H-L). Azzarello has subsequently died, so it is unlikely that this will ever amount to anything more than a very brief but sensational burst of news. It was nominated for deletion, but it will be kept by popular demand.

All evidence suggests that Azzarello was mentally unwell. He likely traveled to New York to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the Trump trial. Now his tragic death will be forever recorded in Wikipedia.

[Kraken]

The ongoing cowardice of Wikipedia Administrators to just do the right thing is astonishing.

Not a single keep voters has said anything other than it's notable. Not one has addressed the fact that there is not a single reason to think this will have any lasting impact, or that the only reason it is getting worldwide news coverage is because it's a horrific event. Key word, news. Tragedy.

The man was mentally ill, and other than this one tragic incident, he is clearly a non-public figure. And that is all there is to it. In the incredibly unlikely event this does become anything more than a tragic news story, there is no reason Wikipedia can't wait even a couple of days before taking a considered judgment. By which time all the pertinent facts will also be known, thereby avoiding the risk of Wikipedia being a party to the dissemination of inaccurate information as this news flies around the world.

And that is precisely why an Administrator can safely delete this article, citing WP:BLP. Weighing up the benefit to Wikipedia of keeping it compared to the potential distress caused to any relatives, is an easy calculation to make.

Easy.

It only requires one of Wikipedia's increasingly dwindling ranks of active Administrators to step up and do the right thing.

[orangepi]

And that is precisely why an Administrator can safely delete this article, citing WP:BLP. Weighing up the benefit to Wikipedia of keeping it compared to the potential distress caused to any relatives, is an easy calculation to make.

Easy.

It only requires one of Wikipedia's increasingly dwindling ranks of active Administrators to step up and do the right thing.

You're trying to get someone de-sysoped, aren't you?

[Randy from Boise]

During the current Trump court case, a man named Maxwell Azzarello lit himself on fire in a park near the court. ... All evidence suggests that Azzarello was mentally unwell.

Ya think?

I'm totally fine with WP serving its news aggregation function now, followed by the inevitable AfD challenge somewhere down the road.

t

[rnu]

And that is precisely why an Administrator can safely delete this article, citing WP:BLP. Weighing up the benefit to Wikipedia of keeping it compared to the potential distress caused to any relatives, is an easy calculation to make.

Easy.

It only requires one of Wikipedia's increasingly dwindling ranks of active Administrators to step up and do the right thing.

You're trying to get someone de-sysoped, aren't you?

That would be the next logical step after "doing the right thing".

[Randy from Boise]

And that is precisely why an Administrator can safely delete this article, citing WP:BLP. Weighing up the benefit to Wikipedia of keeping it compared to the potential distress caused to any relatives, is an easy calculation to make.

Easy.

It only requires one of Wikipedia's increasingly dwindling ranks of active Administrators to step up and do the right thing.

You're trying to get someone de-sysoped, aren't you?

That's not the way the deletion process works, of course — rogue administrators wandering around "doing the right thing" in their own best estimation. This AfD will close as keep; then in a year or so another one will be opened and it will close as delete.

t

[Kraken]

And that is precisely why an Administrator can safely delete this article, citing WP:BLP. Weighing up the benefit to Wikipedia of keeping it compared to the potential distress caused to any relatives, is an easy calculation to make.

Easy.

It only requires one of Wikipedia's increasingly dwindling ranks of active Administrators to step up and do the right thing.

You're trying to get someone de-sysoped, aren't you?

Nope.

There is ample precedent in fact that Administrators who do the right thing (specifically upholding both the letter and spirit of BLP) will be backed to the hilt by ArbCom should it come to that.

Nothing will change on Wikipedia unless someone forces a change.

I normally don't go in for the whole silence is complicity thing, but for Wikipedia, it really does fit. Everyone who just ignores this issue, walls on by, can be assumed to be fine with Wikipedia playing an active role in causing this guy's relatives more pain than is necessary.

It's sick.

[Kraken]

That's not the way the deletion process works, of course — rogue administrators wandering around "doing the right thing" in their own best estimation.

A view which is entirely contradicted by the really rather vague terms and limited examples seen in Wikipedia:Attack page (T-H-L) and other such deletion policy pages.

Administrators are trusted to do the right thing using their own best estimation for precisely this reason.

[Elinruby]

[Beeblebrox]

Whatever the fate of the article, Laura Cotes is probably heading for a Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting (T-H-L) for her live coverage. I can only imagine what that must have been like, both the sight and the smell, which she describes in detail.